It’s time to say ‘no’ to cybernannies

Denial-of-service attacks are a threat to the Web. Viruses are a threat, and uncontrolled spam is a threat. But dirty words? Ridiculous. It looks like Apple is going to do the adult thing and add parental controls to iPhone 3.0 and stop censoring prospective applications on the App Store.

That’s good news for freedom of speech. Apple has engaged in egregious censorship, even forcing a writer to tone down a novel he wanted to sell as an e-book. But every time you boot your computer, someone else decides to play nanny. You’d think the average Web user is a sensitive plant, ready to wilt at the slightest shock. Now Google and Congress are getting into the act. Enough already.

[ Looking to develop your own mobile apps? Find out how in InfoWorld’s developer’s-eye view of smartphone platforms. ]

Watch what you say Sure, some of the remedies are well intentioned. You may remember the ugly MySpace bullying case that led to the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier. I have zero sympathy for the woman who taunted and humiliated an innocent child, and I’m glad she’s going to do some jail time.

But passing a vaguely worded law to crack down on something called “cyberbullying” is, well, stupid — and probably unconstitutional. You’d think that after eight years of watching the constitution shredded by the Bushies, Congress would think twice about abridging the First Amendment. But wave the banner of protecting our children, and common sense immediately takes a hike.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (introduced by Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.) makes it a felony, carrying a two-year prison sentence and a hefty fine, to post or electronically transmit information “with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person … to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

What does that mean? It sounds like hurting someone’s feeling is now against the law. Was I a committing a felony when I repeatedly called IBM CEO Sam Palmisano a bozo and a slumdog millionaire in this blog? Much more significantly, what about a journalist or a citizen who uses the Web to beat on the bad behavior of a public official?

Note the phrase “electronically transmit.” I’d assume that covers e-mail, texts, and tweets, as well as posts and articles on the Web. As one Bush-era official infamously put it: “People should watch what they say.”

For the record, I raised two daughters and care deeply about child-related issues. When my kids were young, I monitored their TV viewing habits and later their Web browsing habits. That’s in the job description when you become a parent. But it shouldn’t be part of a congresswoman’s.

Google’s blacklist Google, a company with a record of placing corporate and political expediency over the principles of free speech and a free Net, has been blacklisting Web sites it deems dangerous. I certainly don’t want it to be easier for some numbskull to plant rogue code on my PC, and those warnings on the Google search page are helpful.

But the popular Firefox browser actually blocks blacklisted sites, unless you fiddle with some of the security settings. Well intentioned? I’d say so. But given Google’s sorry history of caving in to the repressive governments of China and Saudi Arabia, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine other politically sensitive sites being blacklisted as well.

I know you’ve read this kind of story before. And maybe you’re getting bored with it. Too bad — these issues won’t go away if we ignore them.

I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net.